Endorsing Pedophiles for Elected Office?

I. Introduction II. Defining and Attempting to Understand Pedophilia III. Delays in Reporting Childhood Sexual Abuse by Victim IV. Institutional Protection for Sexual Abusers of Children V. Politicians and Sexual Scandals VI. Differentiating Accusations from Convictions VII. Statutes on Child Molestation VIII. Presidential Support for Electing an Accused Pedophile IX. Conclusio

Confidentiality and Juvenile Mental Health Records In Dependency Proceedings

Providing children\u27s disclosures to their mental health therapists greater protection in juvenile dependency cases recognizes the importance of privacy in therapeutic communications. Numerous children are required by juvenile courts to divulge the most intimate details of their lives to mental health experts only to have those disclosures revealed in court proceedings. Reversing the presumption that children\u27s mental health records may be discussed openly in dependency litigation and requiring courts to perform in camera reviews affords children the dignity and respect adults take for granted. Ensuring greater confidentiality for children\u27s mental health records is one step the legal system should take to protect these fragile victims of abuse and neglect

Confidentiality and Juvenile Mental Health Records In Dependency Proceedings

Providing children\u27s disclosures to their mental health therapists greater protection in juvenile dependency cases recognizes the importance of privacy in therapeutic communications. Numerous children are required by juvenile courts to divulge the most intimate details of their lives to mental health experts only to have those disclosures revealed in court proceedings. Reversing the presumption that children\u27s mental health records may be discussed openly in dependency litigation and requiring courts to perform in camera reviews affords children the dignity and respect adults take for granted. Ensuring greater confidentiality for children\u27s mental health records is one step the legal system should take to protect these fragile victims of abuse and neglect

Torture, Ethics, Accountability?

Torture--including waterboarding--has been banned under international and domestic law in the United States dating back to World War II when the U.S. sought to hold Japanese interrogators accountable for waterboarding American prisoners of war. Following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush administration sought legal justification from White House counsel to detain and initiate interrogation practices long considered to constitute acts of torture. After legal memos were drafted, psychologists and physicians along with nurses and other medical professionals engaged in waterboarding and other forms of abusive interrogation often resulting in no reliable intelligence from detainees. None of the professionals involved in this torture have been charged with criminal misconduct, convicted, or sentenced for their participation. If the international and domestic legal systems are unable to hold these licensed professionals accountable, licensure boards and ethics committees should exercise their power to consider removal of licenses for violation of professional ethics codes, if not criminal misconduct